Do Republicians support NASA more than Democrats in the US?

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:48:36 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:41:17 GMT, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:

That is true, and it is. It's about Life, which occupies the
available niches. It's also about controlling the high ground, which
confers military superiority. This much I can tell you: if the
growing Chinese presence in space come to be seen as potentially
outstripping the US presence, the USA will either increase its space
spending to maintain its superiority, or attack China economically or
militarily in order to slow or stop its progress into space.

The Chinese space program is trivial, and will remain so for the
foreseeable future,

While nothing about China is very predictable, we can make an educated
guess that its economy will be larger than the US economy within a few
decades. And the Chinese don't seem to be infected with the
"government always bad" meme, so there is no obvious reason why they
could not apply the resources necessary to achieve their goals in
space.

unless they start copying entrepreneurs over here,
instead of the Russians.

Uh, the Russians put a satellite in orbit before the USA, and they put
a man in orbit before the USA. Hello?

And the Chinese seem to be much smarter than the Russians about what
to copy from the West, so I think I can pretty much guarantee you no
Chinese copy of the shuttle. That puts them ahead right there.

-- Roy L

In article ,
wrote:

Space exploration is about survival of the our species, preventing or
delaying the extinction of the human race in the future by spreading out
into the universe and investigating and retrieving resources from planets,
asteroids and comets in our solar system.

Not really. Advancing technology means that our species will cease to
exist in the (evolutionarily "near") future, space exploration or no
space exploration. We will either be extinguished by a technological
accident of some kind (biological warfare experiment gone awry being
perhaps the most likely cause) or be altered by technology to the
point of being unrecognizable as human.

So? Yes, humans a few hundred years from now will look quite different
from humans today, but I'm quite content with that, as they'll still be
our descendants (and some of them may actually be some of us -- my
cryonics arrangements are in place, how about you?).

This is NOT equivalent to humanity being wiped out. Not even a little.
To argue for the equivalence of these two outcomes is absurd.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:58:34 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Space exploration is about survival of the our species, preventing or
delaying the extinction of the human race in the future by spreading out
into the universe and investigating and retrieving resources from planets,
asteroids and comets in our solar system.

Not really. Advancing technology means that our species will cease to
exist in the (evolutionarily "near") future, space exploration or no
space exploration. We will either be extinguished by a technological
accident of some kind (biological warfare experiment gone awry being
perhaps the most likely cause) or be altered by technology to the
point of being unrecognizable as human.

So? Yes, humans a few hundred years from now will look quite different
from humans today, but I'm quite content with that, as they'll still be
our descendants (and some of them may actually be some of us -- my
cryonics arrangements are in place, how about you?).

Nope. I don't share your faith in the future's hospitality to
corpsicles. Maybe they'll keep you frozen in a lab for historians to
puzzle over, maybe they'll thaw you and put you in a terrarium in
somebody's basement. Whatever supplants us will almost certainly be
quite different from us, may not be our "descendants" in any
biologically meaningful sense, and may not have any interest in
wetware at all.

This is NOT equivalent to humanity being wiped out. Not even a little.
To argue for the equivalence of these two outcomes is absurd.

I'm not saying those outcomes are equivalent, just that it is more
than a little naive to plan today for our descendants to be stepping
down out of airlocks onto alien planets circling distant stars.

And it depends what you mean by "humanity." Whatever replaces us
might be less human than a chimpanzee. And eventually less human than
a turnip. I'm not even sure how much difference it will make if such
beings result from our efforts or someone else's.

-- Roy L

I dont think whatever the human race morphs into matters as long as we
or what ever we morph into moves and spreads out into the universe. I dont
see the US attacking any country militarlly because they beat us in space.
We might attack a country economically if they beat us in space, but its
more likely NASA would get a huge buget to work with.

Ray
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:55:02 GMT, "Ray" wrote:

Space exploration is about survival of the our species, preventing or
delaying the extinction of the human race in the future by spreading out
into the universe and investigating and retrieving resources from planets,
asteroids and comets in our solar system.

Not really. Advancing technology means that our species will cease to
exist in the (evolutionarily "near") future, space exploration or no
space exploration. We will either be extinguished by a technological
accident of some kind (biological warfare experiment gone awry being
perhaps the most likely cause) or be altered by technology to the
point of being unrecognizable as human. Natural selection would take
perhaps 10Ky to produce a noticeable difference in our species, under
strong selection pressure. Given what technology has wrought in the
last 100y (and genetics in the last 50), is it really likely that we
will still be going about our Sims-like lives in the year 12005? How
about the year 102005? It's on the order of 100Ky since our species
assumed its present character.

It's got
to be about something more important that just some dam robot probe doing
science on another planet!

That is true, and it is. It's about Life, which occupies the
available niches. It's also about controlling the high ground, which
confers military superiority. This much I can tell you: if the
growing Chinese presence in space come to be seen as potentially
outstripping the US presence, the USA will either increase its space
spending to maintain its superiority, or attack China economically or
militarily in order to slow or stop its progress into space.

-- Roy L

Ray wrote:
Space exploration is about survival of the our species, preventing or
delaying the extinction of the human race in the future by spreading out
into the universe and investigating and retrieving resources from planets,
asteroids and comets in our solar system. This last point is probably more
important to us in the near future. I wish that this were the reason given
to the American people as the reason for human space exploration. It's got
to be about something more important that just some dam robot probe doing
science on another planet! Space exploration is not something that can put
put off until we "really need to put people in space" or until we have no
choice but to reach out into space because it might be too late at that time
in the future. Real space exploration into the solar system, out of the
solar system into the galaxy and beyond might take centuries or eons to
master for the human race. Thats why we have to start with small steps now
to the moon, mars and beyond or I believe the human race risks extincting
when it does not have to become extinct. Now its true that their might not
be immediate danger of extinction now and more pressing needs on earth and
thats why we need to start out with small steps into space now. What do you
all think?

Nicely put.

A bad scenario is that of some of the peak oil crowd. Increasing fuel
costs lead to the lower incomes in some resepcts the reversal of
society. This would make a space program harder, and more people will
say "our incomes are falling, we can't afford space exploration".

In fact, there's a blog at peakoil who says that NASA should be
redirected from Space Exploration and focused on energy research. A
good answer from NASA might be along the lines of: "Please go and read
GK O'Neill's High Frontier".

In article .com,
"Alex Terrell" wrote:

A bad scenario is that of some of the peak oil crowd. Increasing fuel
costs lead to the lower incomes in some resepcts the reversal of
society. This would make a space program harder, and more people will
say "our incomes are falling, we can't afford space exploration".

In fact, there's a blog at peakoil who says that NASA should be
redirected from Space Exploration and focused on energy research. A
good answer from NASA might be along the lines of: "Please go and read
GK O'Neill's High Frontier".

I haven't read the blog, but are you sure that isn't exactly what the
blogger has in mind? Why would you bring NASA into it if the energy
research you want doesn't involve space development (most likely, SPS)?

FWIW, I tend to agree. "Exploration" is a luxury, and one that can be
carried out just fine by private (for-profit or not) organizations.
What we really need from NASA is infrastructure development, and
particularly given our current and coming energy crisis, more options
for energy production.

(Yes, free markets might eventually develop those too, but it might be
too little too late; one valid purpose for government is to invest in
things that are too risky, or have a horizon too far away, to interest
private investors.)

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Joe Strout wrote:
In article .com,
"Alex Terrell" wrote:

A bad scenario is that of some of the peak oil crowd. Increasing fuel
costs lead to the lower incomes in some resepcts the reversal of
society. This would make a space program harder, and more people will
say "our incomes are falling, we can't afford space exploration".

In fact, there's a blog at peakoil who says that NASA should be
redirected from Space Exploration and focused on energy research. A
good answer from NASA might be along the lines of: "Please go and read
GK O'Neill's High Frontier".

I haven't read the blog, but are you sure that isn't exactly what the
blogger has in mind? Why would you bring NASA into it if the energy
research you want doesn't involve space development (most likely, SPS)?

Blog has gone. Here's the discussion:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...0c193e 60bf26

It was pretty clear - focus NASA on short term energy innovation.

Ray wrote:
Space exploration is about survival of the our species, preventing or
delaying the extinction of the human race in the future by spreading out
into the universe and investigating and retrieving resources from planets,
asteroids and comets in our solar system. This last point is probably more
important to us in the near future. I wish that this were the reason given
to the American people as the reason for human space exploration. It's got
to be about something more important that just some dam robot probe doing
science on another planet! Space exploration is not something that can put
put off until we "really need to put people in space" or until we have no
choice but to reach out into space because it might be too late at that time
in the future. Real space exploration into the solar system, out of the
solar system into the galaxy and beyond might take centuries or eons to
master for the human race. Thats why we have to start with small steps now
to the moon, mars and beyond or I believe the human race risks extincting
when it does not have to become extinct. Now its true that their might not
be immediate danger of extinction now and more pressing needs on earth and
thats why we need to start out with small steps into space now. What do you
all think?




Best way I've ever heard it put was by John Michael Struzinsky writing
for an interview of Commander John Sheridan (played by Bruce
Boxlineger) in one of Babylon 5's episodes. It should be REQUIRED
reading for all politicians at ANY level, as to why we HAVE to go into
Space. If the media or officials could put it on these terms, The
Public would at least understand better why establishing the groundwork
for space travel is ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY if we are to be anything more
than just a interesting but minor experiment in the history of the
universe.

Next time someone says that we should spend "all that money HERE on
Earth", remind them that it IS spent here on Earth, and ask them how
bad they think Hurricane Katrina would have been if we hadn't had the
advance warning weather satellites and the 40 years of experience
tracking hurricanes they've given us. Then remind them that NASA's
budget breaks down to about the cost for a pizza or two every year for
each family.

BTW, shouldn't this thread be in sci.space.policy?

wrote:

Best way I've ever heard it put was by John Michael Struzinsky writing
for an interview of Commander John Sheridan (played by Bruce
Boxlineger) in one of Babylon 5's episodes. It should be REQUIRED
reading for all politicians at ANY level, as to why we HAVE to go into
Space. If the media or officials could put it on these terms, The
Public would at least understand better why establishing the groundwork
for space travel is ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY if we are to be anything more
than just a interesting but minor experiment in the history of the
universe.




The problem with that idea is the amount of time that is going to pass
before the Sun dies...which is in about five billion years.
It's thought that Homo Sapiens emerged as a separate species around
130,000-150,000 years ago.
So, it's going to be around 30,000 to 40,000 times the entire history of
our species before that happens.
So we don't have to migrate to other heavenly bodies in the in the next
fifty years...or even fifty thousand years, for that matter.

Pat

Pat Flannery ) writes:
wrote:

Best way I've ever heard it put was by John Michael Struzinsky writing
for an interview of Commander John Sheridan (played by Bruce
Boxlineger) in one of Babylon 5's episodes. It should be REQUIRED
reading for all politicians at ANY level, as to why we HAVE to go into
Space. If the media or officials could put it on these terms, The
Public would at least understand better why establishing the groundwork
for space travel is ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY if we are to be anything more
than just a interesting but minor experiment in the history of the
universe.

The problem with that idea is the amount of time that is going to pass
before the Sun dies...which is in about five billion years.
It's thought that Homo Sapiens emerged as a separate species around
130,000-150,000 years ago.
So, it's going to be around 30,000 to 40,000 times the entire history of
our species before that happens.
So we don't have to migrate to other heavenly bodies in the in the next
fifty years...or even fifty thousand years, for that matter.

As far as it goes, Pat, you are right.

But, theres one fly in that ointment. Granted that the Earth and the
Sun will still be here five billion years from now ( Barring any
changes coming from the Vorlons... g ), but the Sun has it's fuel
supply, and the Earth doesn't need one.

Only we life forms do, and only we technological civilisation life
forms need resources that are rather non infinite right now, only a
mere century or so, since their consumption began.

It may well be, that if we don't get a civilisation planted off of
this rock, and have it be at least self sufficient, before we run
out of go juice down here, that the ability of any human civilisation
to move off planet might well not exist in a hundred years, even if
those around then really want to do such.

The loss of margin between oil supply and demand of the last couple
of decades ought to give a clue in that direction.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.